From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWJ1H-0005Tz-AC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:10:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWJ1E-0002JQ-2k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:10:19 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:54786 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWJ1D-0002Ig-NZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:10:15 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5MA4SQs120183 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:10:14 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jrx5ytpvc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:10:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:10:12 +0100 References: <20180621170143.113370-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20180622114659.7858fe00.cohuck@redhat.com> <56c5193d-b116-93ae-af96-509fab9e1381@redhat.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:10:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56c5193d-b116-93ae-af96-509fab9e1381@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] s390/ipl: fix ipl with -no-reboot List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Cornelia Huck Cc: qemu-devel , qemu-s390x , Thomas Huth , David Hildenbrand , Halil Pasic , Janosch Frank , Alexander Graf , Richard Henderson On 06/22/2018 11:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 22/06/2018 11:46, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> Ok, then my suggestion made even more sense. :) No other objections >>>> apart from the name of the constant. >>>> >>>> Paolo >>> SHUTDOWN_CAUSE_S390_PARTIAL ? >> Don't like that one much. >> >>> SHUTDOWN_CAUSE_S390_SUBSYS_RESET? >> Either that, or drop the 'S390' (is it conceivable that other >> architectures have something similar)? >> > > I don't know exactly what is going on here, so I'm not very suited to > answer this. The difference just from reading the C code seems to be > that it calls s390_cpu_load_normal instead of s390_ipl_prepare_cpu, and > that it calls subsystem_reset instead of qemu_devices_reset. > > For a more generic name I'd go with SHUTDOWN_CAUSE_OS_BOOT (or > OS_BOOTING, or BOOT_OS), but an s390-specific name is of course fine as > well, especially if you have a specific moniker for the "thing that IPL It is not a BOOT, it is in fact an reset just to the devices. Right now I favor SHUTDOWN_CAUSE_SUBSYSTEM_RESET